(Thanks Jon for the picture)
We join our brethren in Palestine in humbly offering our blessing and congratulation to you leaders, followers, and supporters of the Hamas organization, your victory in the election in Palestine.
Read the letter
KB,
“That’s a long known fact!”
How long has this been known? All intelligence assessments from different countries, and within the intelligence agencies themselves, varied on the strength of their convictions of whether/how much/what kind of WMD Saddam had. But none could possible confirm that he didn’t have them.
No one even attempted this argument. You are just making this up Keld.
“As I talked about ealier today: It can be very painful to admit that your president decieved you.”
How could the president ‘deceive’ me if it has been clear to most americans since 1991 that Saddam is our enemy? I didn’t need any convincing. Saddam didn’t disarm as required in ’91. The UNSC confirmed this unanimously but wouldn’t enforce. We had to go in and verify disarmament and that required terminating his rule.
If Roosevelt had the details on Pearl Harbor and could have mitigated the attack but chose not to, it was a piss poor decision. War had arrived with or without FDR. Opposing the fascists was not the wrong thing to do. I’m happy to blame Roosevelt for a tactical error and I won’t lose sleep over it. He didn’t start the war.
Keld,
If you read the interview with Hamas you’ll see that wiping Israel off the map is no longer the policy of Hamas. They now settle for a one-state solution for both Israelis and Palestinians.
????
You are either stoned or deeply disingenuous. I can’t tell whether you think I am stupid or you are just jerking my chain, but I have never said something here that I didn’t believe just to “win a point” and I am deeply offended if you would yourself. So you must be stoned.
Hitler settled for a “one-state solution” to Czechoslavia. Hamas has said they still do not recognize the state of Israel…so they are not asking to become Israeli citizens.
They still insist on the right of return (do Jews get the right of return to Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Egypt, and Syria?). They have said that their goals have not changed but they recognize that out of practicality, they will have to acheive them “in steps”. They have said that they do not recognize the Oslo Accords, but they will continue to abide by them FOR NOW (since that is pratical at the moment).
Exactly how is Hamas’s “new stance” different from removing Israel from the map???
CMAR,
Apparently the Israelis will be allowed to remain if they submit to Sharia.
KB,
While we are at it, why don’t we ask all arabs to return to arabia and stop occupying all of those other countries? Hmmm. Let’s return North America to the ‘Native Americans’. Certainly arabs must be removed from all of Africa and most of the middle east. Australia to the aborigines and new zealand to the muari…
I think we can probably trace ethnicity and migration patterns via dna mapping so we could literally pick a time in history, set that as the status quo, and then start forced migrations.
But what date do we pick? 100 years ago? 1000? 10,000? Science can handle it. We just need a date from you KB…
Charles, “How long has this been known?”
In 2001 (shortly before 9/11) both Powell and Condi Rice declared that Saddam was no threat to anybody. Don’t tell me that the CIA didn’t know exactly what was going on in Iraq. And if the UN weapons inspectors had been allowed to finish their job, they would have been able to confirm that.
If Saddam had had WMD, he would most certainly have used them against the coalition forces. But the Iraqi army hardly fired a shot.
KB,
And if the UN weapons inspectors had been allowed to finish their job, they would have been able to confirm that.
This is a truly stupid statement. In a country the size of Iraq, how would they have been able to do that without Saddams full cooperation?? (Hans Brix said he wasn’t)
KB,
LEt’s consider political statements within a political context — shall we? If anything, this busts your neo-con conspiracy. Prior to 9/11, Bush apparently had no intention of escalating things so dramatically with Iraq. After 9/11, patience was gone.
“Don’t tell me that the CIA didn’t know exactly what was going on in Iraq.”
How the hell would they know EXACTLY what was going on in Iraq? What fantasy world do you live in? Come back down KB. At times you seem reasonable.
The French and Germans had much closer relations with Saddam. Why didn’t they come out and claim he had complied? The French FM at the time (no friend of US as you know), said that Saddam could never be trusted to comply with disarmament. That is far from confirming his compliance.
“if the UN weapons inspectors had been allowed to finish their job,”
Applying common sense to this for one moment: If more than a decade had passed since the required compliance deadline, and hundreds of inspectors had conducted thousands of inspections and busted Saddam throughout the 90’s but still the only consensus in 9/02 was that he was in material breach of disarmament requirements, how is it you can confidently say that the inspectors would have finished the job? Really KB. Drop the rhetoric and ideological blinders for a moment.
“he would most certainly have used them against the coalition forces.”
You are getting confused here. I am not stating one way or the other that he had weapons. I am trying to establish that he had deliberately not complied with disarmament requirements since 1991 and that led to the crisis. The record proves this.
While I am sure you are an expert on Iraqi military command and control, as well as privy to Saddam’s innermost thoughts, its is still hard to back up your unequivocal claim. We can say for sure that the Iraqi military was not under Saddam’s command from the very first shots. Conscript divisions just melted away and went home.
CMAR, “Hamas has said they still do not recognize the state of Israel…so they are not asking to become Israeli citizens.”
Why should they ask to become Israeli citizens? A one-state solution is a joint state with equal rights for both people, and a new shared nationality. Here’s a snip from the interview with Dr Nashat Aqtash:
I have some work to do this evening, so I won’t have time to respond to the other comments. See you.
Keld,
A one-state solution is a joint state with equal rights for both people
There can’t be any such “joint state” solution when one side doesn’t even recognize the state they are ajoining. That’s ludicrous. How would that be negociated?
What Hamas is saying is that they want Israel to be abolished and for a new “Palestine” state to be created from Israel and the conquered Jordanian territory. Since Palestine is full Arabs –vastly out-numbering the Jews in Israel– that hate Jews, loathe the West, and idolize Saddam and Bin Laden, Hamas feels quite content about the future any non-Muslims in their new “joint state”.
I can’t believe I’m actually typing out this explanation. You KNOW this, you are only pretending to be dense.
Just a few quick remarks:
Charles, “Bush apparently had no intention of escalating things so dramatically with Iraq. After 9/11, patience was gone.”
Sure, we all know that Saddam was behind 9/11.
When Israel recognizes an independant Palestinian state (the two-state solution), they will. From there they can move on to form a final one-state solution. It’s that easy.
When Israel recognizes an independant Palestinian state (the two-state solution), they will. From there they can move on to form a final one-state solution.
I think that as soon as Israel finishes it’s wall –that completely walls off all Israel and Jerusalem except for a little walkway (large enough for two abreast) to the doors of the Dome of Rock– there won’t be an issue of recognizing or not recognizing. They’ll just want to wash their hands of the whole place. And then each time a mortar is launched from the West Bank over the wall, they’ll annex that territory as an increased buffer.
I think that is what they will WANT to do.
But the West will strongly urge them not to for fear it will become a haven for Zarqawists and Palestine will become a new Afghanistan circa 1990.
CMAR, “I think that as soon as Israel finishes it’s wall […] there won’t be an issue of recognizing or not recognizing.”
Unfortunately, I think you’re right. They will become an isolated state like the former DDR, and slowly vanish away.
Oh, a Palestinian state soon to come: Israel unveils plan to encircle Palestinian state. What a surprise.
KB,
“Sure, we all know that Saddam was behind 9/11.”
This is a straw man argument you are parroting.
Pay attention:
After 9/11, the US became justifiably sensitive to murderous rogue dictators pursuing WMD in violation of the will of the international community. After 9/11, it was no longer an abstract hypothetical. The US was under attack by islamic terrorists.
Saddam was condemned for supporting islamic terror groups by the UN. While there is no proof that Saddam was involved in 9/11, we know that he and OBL were in contact, and had offerred mutual sanctuary to eachother, etc. We weren’t going to spend another decade playing games with Saddam and we didn’t want to set a precedent to other dictators that this sort of behavior was acceptable. The UN should have gotton rid of Saddam years earlier when he renegged on cease fire terms, but they lacked the will.
Charles, you sound like Britney Spears when she said Bush is the President and should be obeyed.
My God, do you have your information wrong.
Also, you seem to have overlooked the sanctions — a crime perpetrated by radical Racists as yourself against the Iraqi people — 1.7 million dead.
But let’s look at the Saddam-Bin Laden link, shall we, and try and keep up, you’re three years behind the pack:
Senator Carl Levin released a report on Thursday after a 16-month investigation by the committee’s Democratic staff members accusing the Counterterrorism Evaluation Group (CEG), set up by the Pentagon after the 11 September attacks, of sidestepping the CIA and manipulating information to support the Bush administration’s assumptions.
Levin’s report concluded: “Intelligence relating to the Iraq-al-Qaida relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the [Defence Department] to support the administration’s decision to invade Iraq.”
Undersecretary of Defence Douglas Feith — one of the Bush administration’s strongest advocates for war against Iraq – led the now defunct CEG.
The 46-page document detailed how Feith’s analysts repeatedly sought to outflank the CIA, which was much more sceptical of Iraq-al-Qaida ties.
Nah, Doug did that? No way!
“We have found no operational collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden with regard to attacks on the United States. That conclusion is a very firm one that we have reached.”
The staff report said that bin Laden “explored possible cooperation with Iraq” while in Sudan through 1996, but that “Iraq apparently never responded” to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, “but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.”
The finding challenges a belief held by large numbers of Americans about al Qaeda’s ties to Hussein. According to a Harris poll in late April, a plurality of Americans, 49 percent to 36 percent, believe “clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found.”
The occasion was a press conference with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003. Here’s the key portion:
[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can’t make that claim.
THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question. The one thing I would say, however, is I’ve absolutely no doubt at all that unless we deal with both of these threats, they will come together in a deadly form. Because, you know, what do we know after September the 11th? We know that these terrorists networks would use any means they can to cause maximum death and destruction. And we know also that they will do whatever they can to acquire the most deadly weaponry they can. And that’s why it’s important to deal with these issues together.
Went to war on speculation? Charles, would you go to are based on a guess and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people? Just a yes or no please.
Also, Pakistan had extensive ties with Al-Qaida AND the Taliban providing it with safe harbor and munitions. And Pakistan has nuclear weapons and it has been shown it tried to sell nuclear secrets to Iran. But Pakistan was never invaded. Why?
As you can see from the above, the mutual sanctuary you speak of is simply untrue. Mutual? OBL offered Saddam sanctuary in Afghanistan? I never heard that. But according to the official 9/11 commission, OBL was rebuffed in efforts to set up camp in Iraq.
As for Islamic Terror Groups, you’re wrong there too, the UN never condemned Iraq for that. It was the Israel-US frustration with Saddam paying money to families of Palestinian “martyrs” — whether they be suicide bombers or fighters.
Rather: Mr. President, Americans are very much concerned about anyone’s connections to Osama bin Laden. Do you have, have you had, any connections to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden?
Translator for Saddam Hussein: Is this the basis of the anxiety in the minds of U.S. officials? Or is it the basis of anxiety in the minds of the people of the United States?
Rather: Mr. President, I believe I can report accurately, that it’s a major concern in the minds of the people in the United States.
Saddam Hussein: We have never had any relationship with Mr. Osama bin Laden. And Iraq has never had any relationship with al Qaeda. And I think that Mr. bin Laden himself has recently, in one of his speeches, given– such an answer, that we have no relation with him.
But when Iraqis speak — any Iraqis — they are cast down if they don’t kiss the occupier’s boot like some bloggers:
Rather: What’s the most important thing you want the American people to understand, at this important juncture of history?
Saddam Hussein: First, convey to them that the people of Iraq are not the enemy of the American people. If the American people would like to know the facts as they are, through a direct dialogue, then I am ready to conduct a debate with the President of the United States, President Bush, on television. I will say whatever I have to say about American policy. He will have the opportunity to say whatever he has to say about the policy of Iraq. And this will be in front of the world, on television, in a direct uncensored, honest manner. In front of, as I said, everyone. And then they will judge what is true and what is false.
Rather: This — this is new. You — you are suggesting, you are saying, that you are willing, you are suggesting, you’re urging a debate with President Bush? On television?
Saddam Hussein: Yes. That is my proposal. On films we see that the Americans are courageous. When challenged to a duel they will not back down. Just as the Arabs would not.
This will be an opportunity for him to convince the world, if he is committed to war. If he’s convinced of his own position, this will be an opportunity for him to convince the world that he is right in making such a decision. It could also be an opportunity for us — to– tell the world our own side of the story. And why we want to live in peace, and security.
I believe that it is the right of the American people, the Iraqi people and the world that we show our evidence clearly so that they can see for themselves. So, why should we hide from the people? Why shouldn’t we show them both perspectives? We as Presidents — President of the United States, and President of Iraq. This is what I am calling for. We will either make peace, and this is what we hope for — and spare our people harm, or whoever decides anything other than peace, will have to convince his own people with the facts. This is the — the gist of my proposal, my idea.
More?
The report didn’t conclude that Saddam’s regime had provided “aid, comfort and succor” to al-Zarqawi, a senior administration official said.
He added that there are now questions about earlier administration assertions that al-Zarqawi received treatment at a Baghdad hospital in May 2002.
“The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything,” another U.S. official said.
A congressional official said members of Congress had received an intelligence report in late August containing similar findings.
Yet more!
Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged that he had seen no “smoking gun, concrete evidence” of ties between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaida terror network, but insisted that Iraq had had dangerous weapons and needed to be disarmed by force.
No, no, I insist:
The findings, presented by Charles Duelfer, the chief US weapons inspector in Iraq, said whatever chemical and biological weapons Saddam possessed were destroyed after the first Gulf War and that years of international sanctions had crippled his attempts to develop nuclear technology.
“I still do not expect that militarily significant WMD stockpiles are cached in Iraq,” Duelfer said recently in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
We having fun boys and girls?
The bin Laden message expresses solidarity with the Iraqi people, advises them to remain steadfast in the coming invasion of their country and declares that Saddam and his aides are not important. “It is not important if Saddam and his government disappear,” the man thought to be bin Laden says. “This is a war against you, the Muslims, and you must take arms to defend yourselves.”
U.S. officials were quick to point out that the bin Laden message directly incriminates Iraq and proves the existence of ties between bin Laden’s al-Qaeda and Saddam. U.S. media touted the official line before even hearing the tape, or awaiting a reliable translation. “Undeniably links Iraq with al-Qaeda,” says one CNN anchor.
And then something happened that neither the U.S. administration nor the media anticipated: bin Laden called Saddam an apostate.
The audio message goes on to reveal that bin Laden believes Saddam to be a socialist and declares that “socialists and communists are unbelievers,” thereby labeling Saddam an apostate of Islam, an infidel. It is worth mentioning that the government of Iraq is quasi-socialist and secular, and not Islamic.
Walid Phares, an Arabic-speaking MSNBC analyst finds that the audio message undermines Saddam’s regime: “Osama bin Laden does not care about Saddam, in fact he can’t wait till the demise of Saddam; he is trying to position himself to offer Iraqis an alternative ideology — he calls socialism abhorrent to Islam.”
Fixing the “facts”?
Britain’s spy chief, Sir Richard Dearlove, fresh from a trip to Washington, had concluded that war was “inevitable” because “Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action”, and “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”.
Say it ain’t so, Bubba, say it ain’t so:
The commission was formed by Bush a year ago to look at why US spy agencies mistakenly concluded that Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, one of the administration’s main justifications for invading in March 2003.
“We conclude that the intelligence community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction,” the commission said in a report to the president. “This was a major intelligence failure.”
Oh Doug, why did you lie to Charles? Or did Charles simply want something murderous to believe in?
Levin said distortions by analysts working for Feith fuelled many of the Bush administration’s most controversial claims as it made its case for war. He noted that Vice-President Dick Cheney referred to a magazine story cataloguing many of the Feith team’s controversial findings as the “best source of information” on the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida.
“It wasn’t the best source,” Levin said. “It was an inaccurate, exaggerated source which the CIA insisted be corrected.”
Ladybird, these people are cowards. They sit in Lansing or Des Moines or Toledo and try and preach what they know of a country they have never visited, a peoples they have never shared customs with, and a language they are too racist to try and learn.
Charles said: “After 9/11, the US became justifiably sensitive to murderous rogue dictators pursuing WMD in violation of the will of the international community.”
I like the expression “justifiably sensitive” — are you thinking of someone in particular? Oh, stupid me — Saddam of course. You know, when someone becomes very sensitive to something that doesn’t really exist, it’s usually a good idea to see a psychiatrist. He can prescribe the proper medical treatment for such a paranoid condition, which will also prevent him from hurting or endangering others and/or himself.
“While there is no proof that Saddam was involved in 9/11, we know that he and OBL were in contact, and had offerred mutual sanctuary to eachother, etc.”
Which is just another clear indication of the above mentioned clinical diagnosis.
Didn’t we hash this same stuff over three months ago? Feels like deja vu. :-?
This is ‘old stuff’ for most of us, Jon — but Charles still don’t get it. And he probably never will…
KB — “but Charles still don’t get it. And he probably never will…”
Well, the truth is that he has heard you and understands you, but disagrees with you. There is a fundamental ideological difference between Charles (and CMAR) and you (and LadyBird and Nadia). And then there is a totally other ideological difference between those two groups and me. One of the main problems for Charles is that he can’t or won’t fathom that Bush lied about Iraq. And then on the other side of the coin, there is a problem within the Muslim community too. It seems to be developing the bad habit of reacting to everything in a violent manner. We all need to admit that there are problems on both sides and then we should all work towards finding amicable solutions.
The truth is that there are those out there who do wish to kill off everyone who doesn’t believe the things that they believe. The truth is that those people exist on both sides of the divide. Now the sane people who are left in the world need to band together and figure out the solution. I guarantee you that part of the solution is going to include forgiveness and tolerance on both sides.
Wars of aggression are wrong. Terrorism is wrong. Violating another’s religious sensibilities is wrong. Responding to insult by violently attacking especially those who weren’t even involved is wrong. Attempting to rationalize this type of childish behavior is wrong. Badgering and sniping at each other when we could be working towards figuring out a productive solution is a complete waste of time.
Jon, “…part of the solution is going to include forgiveness and tolerance on both sides.”
I totally agree. There’s a lot of work to be done, and I could even forgive Bush if only he would admit that he was wrong and that he lied to the whole world, but that’s probably the last thing he will do. The future doesn’t look too bright at the moment — a new war seems to loom in the horizon.
TAI,
Nice parsing! And quite smug too. Why don’t you start with an insult and then make an outrageous claim like: people like me killed 1.7 million Iraqis during sanctions that: 1.) not only could Saddam have had removed if he cooperated with the UN, but 2.) were illegally circumvented by him to the tune of billions of dollars. Where did that money go? To feed the children?
Suggestion to you: read the primary documents and not the parsings of ideologues.
Potential link between Saddam and OBL?
“We have found no operational collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden with regard to attacks on the United States.”
That has been said before. 9/11 Commission covered it pretty thoroughly. But I never said Saddam was involved in 9/11. Sorry. Read more carefully. And read more than just the ‘headlines.’ Saddam’s regime was already forfeit based upon his own activities. He himself was a terrorist dictator. The fact that he did have relations with Islamic terror groups was confirmed by UNSC repeatedly in its resolutions. Don’t pretend there is such a big difference between islamic terrorists blowing up civilians in Israel, and the buddies they meet up with at annual jihadfests to talk shop. This connection, and the fact that both he and OBL had made overtures to one another, and their reps had conducted negotiations as recent as the late 90’s (that we know of), mean that a post 9/11 wmd armed Iraq having tea with terrorists is a threat to US. We should have been rid of him back in ’91, but now we weren’t going to take any chances.
I love the arguments that refute the contention of potential links between Saddam and OBL.
1. Both denied a relationship. Duh?
2. They had conflicting ideologies so couldn’t cooperate. Um, please make up your mind here. I thought OBL cooperated with CIA (read infidel USA) to help defeat the USSR? If he can cooperate with the great satan, then he certainly can cooperate with a muslim apostate leader with whom he shares common cause/enemy.
Ah yes, you mean the report that found absolutely zero evidence of Bush admin trying to manipulate the intelligence? Make up your mind. I really do think you should read the primary sources, and not just swallow everything you are fed by ideologues. The intelligence community looked at available evidence, and in post 9/11 environment looked at the worst case scenario.
The problem with your argument is that even in the best case scenario, Saddam still deserved to be removed.
Jon,
“The truth is that there are those out there who do wish to kill off everyone who doesn’t believe the things that they believe. The truth is that those people exist on both sides of the divide.”
That is nonsense Jon. Maybe it helps you feel a bit more righteous to say something like that — but its quite stupid.
People who support the overthrow of Saddam and are willing to support Bush’s efforts to help establish democracy in Iraq, and rebuild Iraq, are not doing so because they want to “kill off” people with different beliefs.
Unless of course you are referring to terrorists. In which case I say ’ YES DO PLEASE ELIMINATE THEM.’
Sorry for being so shallow and ethnocentric. Really…
Pingback: The Bow and Grimace: true journalism as it was meant to be...human.: Thoughts for the day...
KB — “I totally agree. There’s a lot of work to be done, and I could even forgive Bush if only he would admit that he was wrong and that he lied to the whole world, but that’s probably the last thing he will do.”
Yes, it will be the last thing he does. Does that mean that peace should be abandoned? Is the overblown chimp that is called Bush that important in relation to the rest of the human race?
“a new war seems to loom in the horizon”
So they say. However, I’m doubtful this plan will make it past Congress.
Charles — “That is nonsense Jon.”
I agree. Still, these people exist.
Jon, “Is the overblown chimp that is called Bush that important in relation to the rest of the human race?”
Maybe he’s just a puppet, too… International bodies like WTO, IMF, and the World Bank are probably more powerful than him. And who are the players behind PNAC?
No, we should not abandon peace. People like Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and Cindi Sheehan have shown us, that everybody can do his or her little bit to make it a better world. Maybe that’s why we’re debating in small forums like this ;-)
KB — “Maybe that’s why we’re debating in small forums like this”
That’s my raison d’etre. However, most of what is happening here is bashing and counterbashing. Seems unproductive to me.
Interesting article by Bassam Saleh: Why Hamas won, why Fatah lost: the steps to take in the coming months
I’m not sure if this fellow got beyond the ideological stuff, but the fact that candidates broke from fatah and ran independently using much of the fatah logos, etc., split the fatah vote. In many districts, if you add the independent plus the fatah vote, they would have prevailed.
But I’m not sure how significant it was overall. Have you heard this?
Its the same in US politics. The far left has been screwing the democrats, and before that perot split the right.
Sweden increases Palestinian aid:
I love the swedes, but I think the Israel/PA issue is a bit more complex than they pretend.
Israel can hardly be expected to provide support to a government whose policy is to erase its existence. Wouldn’t that be odd?
Would you give money to a neighbor who declared war on you and was trying his best to kill you and your family???
I think not.
Charles, would you submit to a state that declared war on you and was trying its best to kill you and your family???
I think not.
KB,
Don’t BS yourself. The ‘occupied’ territories were never Palestine. The lands were originally taken from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria after those countries attacked Israel.
The Israelis are not trying to kill palestinians. There are lots of Palestinians who live and work in Israel. There are (were) lots of Palestinians who commuted to Israel for work. That becomes difficult naturally when terrorists cross from the occupied territories into Israel to murder people. Israel tightens border security. Israel conducts raids to eliminate the terrorists who are actively plotting attacks against them.
The terrorists have been successful in escalating the cycle of violence, inviting retaliation, alientating the populations, and creating conditions that make life in the territories unacceptable.
Now the PA will be run by a terrorist organization. We will see what they do. In any case, don’t expect Israel to make it easier for the terrorists to kill its citizens.
“… The terrorists have been successful in escalating the cycle of violence …”
So has the Israeli terrorists.
Charles, I don’t want to get into a long and fruitless discussion about who has more right to be there. I think both people have an equel right, and I think the best solution would be a joint democratic state for both Israelis and Palestinians. Period.